The Rule of W T F ??!

[Kulindahr]

The phrase "the rule of law" is popular these days, like it's some sort of virtue, some near-utopian thing that sets a country high above others. I've commented frequently how in reality it means an utter disregard for people and their dignity, for human values such as compassion and even common sense. Now I've got a comment that comes from beyond that, due to two situations right here where I live. Note that both of these are considered as coming under the heading of "the rule of law"....



The way some law is written these days, the "guilty" party doesn't even have to be aware that a crime has been committed. Case in point: a police officer visits a piece of property, for some ostensible reason. Said officer drops something while there, unknown to the resident. When the officer returns two days later with a partner, the item is "discovered", and as it is something illegal to have in one's possession, the resident is arrested for possession. Crazy? True, but a guy here is presently sitting in jail because of it -- and there's nothing that can be done about the officer's actions, since he can assert that he was on the property in the pursuit of his duty and therefore doesn't have to answer questions about it unless ordered by the court.


The second is so bizarre I'll just give the bare details: a guy in the same neighborhood was arrested after police trashed his trailer, and is now sitting in jail charged with rape... committed against someone he's never met. How did he "rape" her? By phone, the charge says -- but he doesn't know and doesn't have her number.


What the "Rule of Law" seems to mean now is the rule by people who enjoy arresting others and do it because they can.

 

[Corny]

how about in dubio pro reo

 

[Kulindahr]

how about in dubio pro reo

I've sat on a jury several times and never heard a judge admonish us on that one. We got lectures about not using any information the testimony didn't give us, about making our decision only on the basis of what the law says, about remembering that public servants are to be trusted (ha -- that one came in a trial where we the jury decided the sheriff's deputy was a lying SOB and didn't care what the accused had done, because we knew that what the deputy claimed wasn't even possible)....

And when the law is written so it doesn't matter if someone actually did anything so long as certain things are as the law specifies, how can there be any doubt?

 

[bankside]

I think the term is being framed. The court system must have mechanisms for dealing with that prospect.

 

[Corny]

wait .. are you saying that in dubio pro reo isn't one of the fundamental basics of law in the US because that is the only thing that protects you from arbitrariness in front of the law.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the term is being framed. The court system must have mechanisms for dealing with that prospect.

The court system is supposed to have such mechanisms.

But I sat in a trial where the judge specifically instructed the jury that how an item got to where it was was not relevant under the law; the only issue was whether it was in fact there, because that's all the law asked.

That's why the "rule of law" is a very evil thing: law can be very irresponsible.


Trial by jury is supposed to be part of the checks and balances here; the jury is supposed to be able to say (as we did in that one trial) that the law is fucked up, the person is innocent.

 

[Kulindahr]

wait .. are you saying that in dubio pro reo isn't one of the fundamental basics of law in the US because that is the only thing that protects you from arbitrariness in front of the law.

I suppose it's meant to be in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" principle, but that one gets shredded and recast by prosecutors and juries into its mirror: that you're supposed to convict unless you are darned sure the guy didn't do it.

And of course that gets even muddier when they deliberately charge a person with five crimes for one action. I don't get how people can fail to see that it's just tyrannical to charge someone for both vandalism and breaking and entering for the same act of smashing a window to get into a place... and then add burglary and trespassing.


I just learned in the morning paper that 1 in 33 people here is under the thumb of these charlatans -- that's 3.33% of the population in the clutches of the "corrections" system.

 

[Corny]

that you're supposed to convict unless you are darned sure the guy didn't do it.

uh .. quite the opposite from what it should be .. yeah.

And of course that gets even muddier when they deliberately charge a person with five crimes for one action. I don't get how people can fail to see that it's just tyrannical to charge someone for both vandalism and breaking and entering for the same act of smashing a window to get into a place... and then add burglary and trespassing.

there is another fundamental principle of law (i'm no lawyer but there is latin name for it as well) which says that you can't be charged for the same thing twice, and that only the "worst" action is to be punished

 

[Kulindahr]

there is another fundamental principle of law (i'm no lawyer but there is latin name for it as well) which says that you can't be charged for the same thing twice, and that only the "worst" action is to be punished

Yeah.

What got us to this point is the plea bargaining system. That started with good intentions, but what it's come to is a prosecutor automatically listing every possible charge for a given act instead of making just the one, so the accused gets terrified and agrees to a plea. That has resulted in a situation where a major newspaper here has concluded that one in five convictions in Oregon is of an innocent person.

A result of the sort of things I listed is that people are afraid to lend a hand to anyone accused, because of the worry that they could be framed next.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I think the term is being framed. The court system must have mechanisms for dealing with that prospect.

You would be shocked at how the American system does NOT work. While I have never had the displeasure of dealing with the American criminal system, I have a ton of exposure to the civil lawsuit side. My god, the entire system is a joke! If the criminal system works even 20% of the way the civil side does, it's a travesty of justice.

 

[Kulindahr]

You would be shocked at how the American system does NOT work. While I have never had the displeasure of dealing with the American criminal system, I have a ton of exposure to the civil lawsuit side. My god, the entire system is a joke! If the criminal system works even 20% of the way the civil side does, it's a travesty of justice.

Three remaining WWII vets here who were in Europe ("up the boot", or "down the throat", as they put it) say what we have locally is what they went to Europe to fight against: utterly arbitrary exercise of power.

The true craziness is here: the county commissioners have no authority over the sheriff except to give an up or down approval to his budget. Citizens have no recourse but to appeal to the state, which by law then refers the matter, with the identities of the complainants, to the authority designated by law. That authority turns out to be the county sheriff.

The same is true of complaints about the 'corrections' division: it all gets referred back to the people being complained about!

 

[Kulindahr]

Just to add something of the latest on one of the situations I referenced....

when the mother of the guy arrested for rapng someone he's never met told cops she had no idea what a lot of their questions for her today were about, they told her that if she continues that way, they'll arrest her for obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, they've taken the only keys to her storage units and other property and refuse to give them back.

I feel like I'm in a bad movie about Nazi Germany!